It is my understanding, someone correct me if I am wrong, that Democrats and Republicans have agreed to limit the number of amendments and have established a quid-pro-quo, for every one Republican amendment there will be one Democrat amendment.

Again, the purpose of this thread should be to distill into cogent ideas a list of "Carrots" we would like to see added to the bill/amendment. This is somewhat self-serving because I am a little reactionary and want to take advantage of the wealth of knowledge and exertise here on this forum for the end-result of e-mailing senators and congressman what amendments I would like to see made.

My ideas, which are probably over-the-top, are:
1: Repeal the NFA, make all NFA items now fall under the purview of this amendments' background check.
Pro: I think this would be an expansion of gun rights. It would likely keep the bill/amendment from being signed into law.
Con: Is there a Senator or Congressman that would offer this amendment?

1a. Remove sound suppressors from NFA status.
Pro: Watered down idea from 1, but may be more feasible to get a Senator or Congressman to propose the amendment.
Con: The quid-pro-quo Democrat amendment.

2. Since a NICS check in effect checks to see if we are indeed citizens and do not have felonys or other criminal convictions that bars us from enjoying our Second Amendment Rights.
NICS background checks will also be used in all local, state, and federal elections to determine the eligibility of voters.
Pro: I don't know if there is one, I am just tired of losing my rights so I want to give everyone, that votes, a taste of what it feels like to have your rights infringed.
Con: See Pro

EDIT:
3. Require NICS to inform in writing, within 7 days, the reason for any denial as well as the appeals paperwork. Upon finding that any NICS employee has incorrectly denied a purchase a total of 3 times said employee will be relieved of duty and will be barred from any future employment relating to NICS.
Pro: This could reduce the number of improper denials. This would also speed up the process for individuals wrongly denied to regain their rights.
Con: quid-pro-quo amendment.

Would be good if they were attatched and included if it passed, but I doubt UBC as some anti's want would pass SCOTUS either. Perhaps I am too hopeful.

If I could, Id tack on something about how all the "hot-air from bloviating by politicians/media in DC would either need to be captured and used to heat the country, or to have a cap on the hot air to help with the global warming farce."

Force "Hollywood" to pay a $1000 fine for every act of violence shown in any non
"X" (can't remember the current nomenclature) movie for every ticket sold to such. Can not be passed on to the distributors - theatre owners - or movie buying public.

There are too many laws and taxes already.If they need another gun law,it means the gun laws we have are ill conceived,ineffective,and unjustifiable.
Repeal the old ones before any new ones.
Each new law criminalizes more,each new tax..well,you get my point.
If the GCA 68 does not work,scrap it..First.

I've seen some justifications that are... statistically rare, and stretchy, but reasonably viable...

For example the folks who live rural enough to shoot in their backyard, but urban enough to have neighbors close enough to call the cops about shots fired and/or get annoyed at the noise. It's certainly not a common set of circumstances, but I can understand the rationale behind it.

In addition to protecting your hearing, suppressors can be useful for hunting near civilized areas, where local NIMBYs may object to the sound of high-powered rifle fire interrupting their idyllic suburban utopia. In fact, suppressors are REQUIRED for legal rifle hunting in some European and British jurisdictions, largely for this reason.

Some anti-suppressor factions like to point out that suppressors somehow encourage poaching by masking the source of gunfire, but I regard this argument as somewhat specious, as there is more than one way to silently bag game animals (e.g. archery or traps).

__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

And there are people who will pay for one because it looks cool, just like there are people who put aftermarket flare thing-a-ma-bobs on their EBR to LOOK like an auxiliary grenade launcher, or a spoiler on their Japanese Import to LOOK like a race car.

When I was more nervous about the momentum of these bills and the potential for the national registration of semi-autos in the NFA registry I was real excited for the prospect of some Senator (NOT MINE!) to introduce a little innocuous amendment to reopen the MG registry that closed in 1986. Fine, I'll register my semi's and I will happily apply for 5 stamps to cover NEW production full-autos at actual real-world retail prices e.g. $2K for an M16A3/4 NOT 20K for a 1970's vintage M16/A1. And a replica BAR... and something beltfed...

Wouldn't that be their nightmare? You get national registration of semi-autos but the number of transferable full-autos will quintuple in a week! Then we could continue to demonstrate that NFA items are so exquisitely rarely used in criminal acts.

I find this to me more realistic than outright repeal of NFA. Also, NO ONE give them ideas RE indexing tax stamps to or adjusting for past inflation. Please.

Suppressors make sense for helping to save hearing, as has been mentioned before, and I have seen them used to by fathers at the range with their kids teaching them to shoot. The larger point is though, why are they classified as NFA and what is the grounds for the reluctance to remove them from being listed as NFA items?

I heard, read, that the reason they were added was that because they were used during the Great Depression by poachers trying to feed their families. (Note: I totally accept that this may be an "Old wives tale" and would appreciate it if anyone knows the real reason to post it.)

Maybe not a repeal of the NFA, but reduce it somewhat.
Re-open the registry, remove suppressors as NFA items, remove the $200 tax stamp, and replace the FBI background check with the NICS background check. Maybe it is just me but I don't see the logic in a differentiated background check system. If NICS verifies that you meet the necessary conditions for practicing your Second Amendment rights then further background checks serve no purpose other than to discourage citizens and unnecessarily delay the process.

And the Tax Stamp, I keep hoping that the day arrives that the Supreme Court changes enough, replacing Justices; that a new court will revisit, or look anew, at an argument that a tax on constitutional rights in unconstitutional on the same, or similar, grounds that a poll tax in unconstituional.

I will admit I was a little surprised that Manchin-Toomey did not pass, I watched the vote on C-Span. But, even if it did I did not expect it to make it through the House.

- sunset provision (I think this should be standard on pretty much all legislation, forces reconsideration of unintended consequences)
- NFA items legal for cc permit holders (incremental step)
- LEO and govt agencies must fully abide by local firearm laws, including bans, registration, mag limits, etc. (police, SWAT, National Guard, Border Patrol, Secret Service, all of them). what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
- path to restoration of 2A rights for non violent felons
- loan a buddy a gun for as long as I want with written permission granted, he can travel/hunt/shoot with it as he pleases, it's not a transfer (ideally with protection from lawsuit if he breaks bad)

No. Earplugs only protect the individual wearing them. A suppressor, like a car muffler, helps everyone within earshot.

Quote:

The reason for a suppressor is so that OTHER people don't hear it. Let's not beat around the bush here.

That is a reason, not the reason.

Quote:

So, other than assassination, and night time poaching/hunting (because guns are typically more reliable than snares or archery), why would one need that?

As noted, your verb choice is problematic. However, as a general matter one would need a suppressor to suppress the loudest and most obnoxious sounds a firearm makes. This is much the same reason states mandate the use of mufflers on cars.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.